We are in a hole. Our Government is in a financial hole. We all know what needs to be done, where we need to get to. The disagreement is over how. But surely, Mr Editor, that comes as no surprise … to anyone.

Yes, we expect our Government to lead. The governing party was elected promising to do just that, ie to turn this economy around and to improve Government finances. But lead does not mean dictate.

People want to be respected. This means they want the opportunity to have their say and, let’s face up to it, voters are entitled to be heard — especially those who stand to be affected the most. Collaboration, to stand any chance of success, must be preceded by consultation, and consultation doesn’t just mean speaking, it means listening as well; and, yes, dialogue is meant to be and should be a two-way street.

The SAGE report went public just about a year ago. We are on the eve of another parliamentary session, the third since the OBA took office, and voters recently got their first public meeting and opportunity to weigh in on what Government is proposing.

A draft of the Public Bodies Reform Act 2014 was of course front and centre — as it should be. This is a significant piece of legislation that provides for all sorts of possibilities when it comes to how our government could be organised or, rather, reorganised. No one can deny as well that it has major implications once implemented and acted upon. That is the whole point, is it not?

The draft bill has been posted on the Government website for review since July. We are also told that there have been behind the scenes consultations with stakeholders, although there seems to be some dispute over whether it has been sustained and meaningful.

But legislation is no easy read, no matter how short or simple it may seem. Public meetings to explain and defend what’s proposed can be most illuminating and educational. For those who have been following, you will know that I believe that our parliamentarians should be taking a lead on this: like, for example, the legislative committee I suggested a few weeks back which could scrutinise bills and have the policymakers and those who drafted the legislation account for their work through questions and answers, all of it in the public eye.

This approach makes consultation meaningful and collaboration possible.

I detect the same fundamental flaw in the proposed Public Bodies Reform Act (PBRA). It runs counter to the principles of consultation (and collaboration) that should be the cornerstone of much-needed parliamentary reform. It is well past time that we throw off the old yoke of how we are governed, particularly if we are looking for different and better results.

A quick, brief review to make the point:

• PBRA establishes an Efficiency and Reform Authority (ERA) that can make wide-ranging recommendations to the Premier and Finance Minister, but there is no statutory requirement the recommendations be made public.

• The ERA is required to consult with stakeholders (“a broad and diverse range of persons, associations and organisations”): big tick, this is necessary and good. But on the other hand there is no statutory requirement that there be any public hearings or meetings. Yes, there is nothing to stop them from going public, but that’s a lot different than requiring the ERA to do so.

• The ERA is expected to produce an annual report (and accounts) which must be tabled in the Legislature but no requirement that the documents disclose recommendations made over the course of the year; but, and in any event, the reports may be published up to six months after the year end.

• Ministers can make Reform Orders that can abolish, rearrange and modify offices and/or outsource (the power is pretty broad and wide-ranging) after consultation with the ERA, Premier, Minister of Finance and key stakeholders. Big tick again. But once again there is no statutory requirement for public consultation. By the time an Order makes it way from Cabinet through Caucus, and into the Legislature for approval, it is pretty well a fait accompli, subject to debate and vote, yes, but we all know how that usually goes.

• Lastly, the Premier is given the power to make “regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the proper carrying out of the intent and provisions of the Act”, but they need only be done via the negative resolution procedure — which means they do not have to first come to the House for approval. It is instead left to any alert and/or aggrieved backbencher to bring the regulations to the House for debate and ratification. But on matters this important the requirement should be that regulations first come to the Legislature for approval.

I know, I know, time is not on our side. There is the urgency of now. But we heard about the urgency of now the year before the election and in the year after. It has also been another full year since the SAGE report and recommendations went public. Whoever is responsible, and whatever the reason, it is not the people’s fault it has taken this long.

This Act is major. The implications are enormous. For that reason alone, mechanisms should be put in place which make wider consultation and dialogue mandatory, and a strong feature of the decision-making process. Engaging the public through consultation is fast becoming a standard, modern-day feature of good governance. Sure, it may take more time and more effort, but it is the best way, arguably the only way, to bring people along and win broad support — and the broader the support the better. Democracy, folks, is not a business. It isn’t just the bill that should be pulled. It’s the approach.